]]>By: JTaylorhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/#comment-173244
Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:43:18 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901#comment-173244I love it when people throw out huge population numbers (7 Billion) to illustrate mankind’s impact on the land, oceans and atmosphere. I swear, they all must live in the city and think the whole world is cramped and polluted.

People really need to get out more and see how open and uncrowded the planet realy is and how insignificant a cow fart really is.

I love this little factoid: The entire world population would fit into the State of Texas, with a little room to spare.

I didn’t really ask any questions about levels of atmospheric gases or average temperature.

The rhetorical questions were a statement that seven billion people’s cities and activities have an impact upon the weather worldwide, major in the sense it’s observable and the source is known. The other side of my observations were that it’s hardly surprising if the anomaly trend over time is upwards a few tenths of a degree. Regardless of the reason(s). Neither of my comments attempts to qualify things, nor even establish a relationship between the effects on the weather and the anomaly. It also isn’t a commentary on the state of science, the importance of the recent trend rise in the anomaly, or what, if anything, needs to be done about it.

I believe I’ve been clear in the past I’m of the opinion that the anomaly trend is just as likely due to changes in measurement and/or processing. Or is well within the margin of error of the readings or averaging of them, or is due at least partially to bias(es), etc etc.

I’m simply saying that “UHI” shouldn’t be ignored and that it’s not inconsequential.

Your comment on the Phanerozoic. What does the physical status of the Earth 40 or 200 MYA have to do with the most recent few hundred or thousand? But if the point is that Earth has had many major changes without humans, of course it has. No humans were required to produce the Eemian, right? And we probably had nothing to do with Lake Agassiz draining. :)

The point is that in our most recent little slice of the Subatlantic, there have been certain changes to the climate we’ve observed. In the absence of some large change in the short period of the last two or six or eight or eighteen-hundred years in Earth’s {orbit, core, magnetic field, insolation, axial tilt, etc}, there’s a simple explanation for any part of the behavior that is actually due to anything other than noise et al. And I’m not trying to qualify or quantify anything, just point out there’s a simple explanation; an observable one.

Like the arbitrary UHI adjustments, these sources of error are disregarded altogether, subjected to arbitrary adjustments without adequate experimental verifications, and generally denied as a confounding problem in the preparation of the IPCC reports and conclusions.

Which is one of the reasons I commented that all we have is a general rough estimate of how things probably are. The specifics are uninspiring and unimportant; a distraction.

Let’s break down the conclusion about humans and heat while we’re at it!

Industrial era increases in levels of LW IR reactive gases seem to be probably responsible for the bulk of any change in the planet’s energy levels since that time. We happen to believe the anomaly trend probably reflects such changes. The trend is up, so it looks like that means it’s warming. A lot of this is conjecture and opinion of course. But we’ll phrase it in the appropriate manner, don’t worry.

lol

How can anyone expect to obtain valid results using fictional data with persistent biases?

I don’t know if I’d call it fictional, or try and qualify what is valid or invalid. But it is all taken into consideration, assigned a place in the scheme of things, and then the details jettisoned so more important things can be focused upon.

In other words, the range of measurement errors are highly likely to be greater than the alleged temperatures.

Of course they probably are. That’s why it’s a general rough estimate and not specific pinpointed fact. !

Sam, I cannot help but observe that you are premature in making presumptions about the anthropogenic effects upon the world’s climate, despite its obvious impacts upon geography and the biosphere.

That waste heat and ground and atmospheric by-products of producing it, along with the roads, farms, buildings, parking lots and the like, all are their own evidence. As far as the impacts, the only solution is probably a return to pre-1700 population, industrialization and urbanization. And that assumes the net sum of other physical changes aren’t the bulk of the difference. If there is actually a difference.

Again, I point out that “Industry, transportation, and biomass burning in North America, Europe, and Asia are emitting trace gases and tiny airborne particles that are polluting the polar region, forming an “Arctic Haze” every winter and spring.”

You should especially note that human impacts are not necessarily undesirable for humans or the biosphere. You may even want to consider the possibility that anthropogenic warming of the planet is a necessity for the survival of humans and most species of the biosphere.

Pointing out that LULC explains everything in a simple and obvious way isn’t a comment on if human impacts might be good or not. Immaterial. It doesn’t even deal with it. This is about UHI. And that the claim that UHI effects are corrected for is probably a mistaken belief.

As Steve said

This does not prove that CRU and NOAA estimates are any good. Quite the contrary. It shows that the CRU and NOAA failures to make UHI adjustments along the lines of GISS are introducing a substantial bias in these records.

Or even more to the point

Whether or not urban heat islands have a material impact on the surface records is a different question. The difference between GISS US results and NOAA US results is strong evidence that there is a noticeable impact – one which needs to be addressed by CRU and NOAA and by GISS outside the US. In my opinion, Gavin’s own statement that “urban heat island effects are corrected for in the surface records” is, to borrow a phrase from realclimate, “disinformation”.

D. Patterson, I don’t think we’re having the same conversation. But seriously, 1800 ppmv and/or 22 C as a perfect and natural and historical level? Regardless, that’s not pertinent here. (Correlating those is a different subject entirely of course, also not pertinent here.)

Sam, it is highly pertinent to the question you asked.

Is there really a question if seven billion people’s cities and activities have anything other than a major impact upon the weather worldwide?

It’s unfortunate that you cannot see and understand how the pre-human climates of the Phanerozoic are highly pertinent to understanding the limited scope of human influence upon the climate of the past century or so. Human influences upon the global climate are not unique for this planet’s past climates. Likewise the artificial UHI effects are not unique in our planet’s existence, becuase there have also been natural heat island effects as well. I’ve seen little evidence of a proper discussion or understanding of the UHI or the natural heat island effects with respect to accurate measurements and post-measurement adjustments. Instead, I have watched in dismay as the leadership of the WMO in the Seventies and its subsequent offspring, the IPCC, engage in mismanagement of data collection and dubious manipulations of the raw and analyzed data for the past 40 years. I have personally witnessed the falsification of synoptic observations at international airports while I used the identical instrumentation. There are many other official and anecdotal reports of errors entereing the data record as a result of instrumental errors, misconduct, and more. Like the arbitrary UHI ajustments, these sources of error are disregarded altogether, subjected to arbitrary adjustments without adequate experimental verifications, and generally denied as a confounding problem in the preparation of the IPCC reports and conclusions. Consequently, I cannot ignore what I have witnessed, and I cannot have confidence in the IPPC reports or the sources of the IPCC unless and until such time as these errors and problems are corrected by a means which is rational and verified by proper independent replications of the necessary scientific experiments. Furthermore, digital modeling is not a substitute for proper physical scientific data and methods.

Although it’s all pretty much just opinion backed by circumstantial or anecdotal evidence and models, it is the scientific opinion that:

increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations is very likely to have caused most of the increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century

Yes, the problem is that you need to ask who’s “scientific opinion.” Despite the press releases of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others claiming the debate is over, there are a large number of of scientists who are no less qualified and are more qualified in climate science and the atmospheric sciences who strongly dispute such claims. Hansen’s former superior for one such example, Dr. John S. Theon, has recently added his voice to dispute the conclusions and the conduct of Hansen and the IPCC. UHI is a very real scientific phenomenon, and Gavin Schmidt is misinforming his listeners when he claims UHI has been adjusted out of the climate datasets. Worse yet, the falsified raw data in the records is not even being acknowledged, much less discussed, in any meaningful way with respect to the validity of the IPCC reports and the studies used to prepare those reports. How can anyone expect to obtain valid results using fictional data with persistent biases?

If you want to test Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC reports he uses to support his claims, try to obtain proof that the datasets have been adequately adjusted to remove the false raw temperature observations used in the preparation of the various models relied upon by the IPCC. I’ll bet he uses one of the NWS or other studies which claims the errors from the erroneous observations are negligible and not a significant factor in the error range of the climate models. I’ll also bet the claims of negligible impact cannot be verified by independent researchers, because the actual scope of the errors is unknown, unknowable, and undeterminable. Suffice it to say that whatever the impact of the errors may be, they are highly likely to be greater in potential effect than the adjusted temperatures and change rates being reported by GISS, UCAR, and the IPCC. In other words, the range of measurement errors are highly likely to be greater than the alleged temperatures. Evidence of this problem has been seen time and again on this blog with the various analyses of the ROW observations as just one category of examples.

Sam, I cannot help but observe that you are premature in making presumptions about the anthropogenic effects upon the world’s climate, despite its obvious impacts upon geography and the biosphere. You should especially note that human impacts are not necessarily undesirable for humans or the biosphere. You may even want to consider the possibility that anthropogenic warming of the planet is a necessity for the survival of humans and most species of the biosphere.

You may also find it enlightening to explore the reliability of the adjusted data with respect to natural heat island effects.

]]>By: thefordprefecthttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/#comment-173240
Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:12:27 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901#comment-173240Last night at 22:30 we drove home from Cheltenham town centre temperature +2.5C. 1km towards the urban edge the temperature was 0C 17km further from the town the temperature was -2C

This morning 08:15 drove to work temperature was 0C, 17 km into Cirencester town centre temp was 0C
(look the places up on google if you need)
This morning 07:45 my wife drove to cheltenham where the sreets were paved with ice (do not know the temperature but obviously lt 0C)

Obviously the concrete of cheltenham retains the days heat but eventually cools UHI effect must be partially a phase shift?
How can you allow for this sort of UHI?
If urbanisation happens then surely there would be discontinuities showing within a few weeks of readings as the roads are built then the houses constructed? Shouldn’t these be visible on the temperature plots?

If the urban area is at a different temp to surroundings then there should be the equivalent of sea breezes modifying the site environment.

How do you account for wind speed?
How would you account for wind direction?